Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Illumina’s patent is directed to a method of labeling nucleotides in a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) strand. At the request of IBS, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 8 of the patent, on the basis that they were invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Board found that IBS failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating the obviousness of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the Board’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence. View "Intelligent Bio-Sys, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd." on Justia Law

Heartland, an LLC organized and existing under Indiana law is headquartered in Indiana. Kraft, organized and existing under Delaware law, has its principal place of business in Illinois. Kraft filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Heartland’s liquid water enhancer products infringe Kraft’s patents. Heartland moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer venue to the Southern District of Indiana. Heartland alleged that it is not registered to do business in Delaware, has no local presence there, has not entered into any supply contracts in Delaware or called on any accounts there to solicit sales, but admitted it ships orders of the accused products into Delaware. In 2013, these shipments, 44,707 cases of the product, generated at least $331,000 in revenue, and were about 2% of Heartland’s total sales of the accused products. The Magistrate Judge determined that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Heartland for claims involving the accused products and rejected Heartland’s arguments that 2011 amendments to 28 U.S.C. 1391 negated precedent governing venue for infringement suits. The district court denied Heartland’s motions. The Federal Circuit denied Heartland’s petition for mandamus to either dismiss or transfer the suit. View "In re: TC Heartland LLC" on Justia Law

Mankes’s patent claims methods for managing a reservation system that divides inventory between a local server and a remote Internet server. Mankes sued Vivid Seats and Fandango, alleging infringement by their Internet-based reservation systems, in conjunction with the operation of local systems by movie theaters and other entertainment venues. No one person performs all of the steps of the claims, so Mankes’s case depended on establishing “divided infringement.” At the time, the law relating to divided infringement was under reconsideration. In 2014, the Supreme Court held that divided-infringement liability requires some person to be liable for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). In 2015, the district court concluded that Mankes’s allegations were insufficient to establish direct infringement and granted defendants judgments on the pleadings. Vivid Seats sought attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. The court denied the request, finding the case not exceptional. The Federal Circuit vacated in light of developments since the Court’s Akamai decision, broadening the circumstances in which others’ acts may be attributed to an accused infringer to support direct-infringement liability for divided infringement. Attribution is proper in a joint-enterprise setting. The district court’s rulings were based on the earlier, narrower standard. Mankes made reasonable arguments for adjustment of legal standards that the Federal Circuit had already granted en banc review to consider; his pursuit of the case was not unreasonable. View "Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd." on Justia Law

The patent, titled “Man Machine Interface via Display Peripheral” is directed to a remote control device for making selections on television or computer screens. Claim 1 requires that the device be “adapted to be held by the human hand” and a multi-function “thumb switch being adapted for activation by a human thumb.” On ex parte reexamination, the examiner rejected claims as anticipated and obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103, relying primarily on Japanese Patent 634, which discloses a desk-bound mouse with a locking key surrounded by four moving keys operable by a user’s finger to control cursor movement on a screen. The examiner construed “adapted to be held by the human hand” broadly to include various “forms of grasp or grasping by a user’s hand,” such as grasping the mouse disclosed in J634, and similarly interpreted the claim term “thumb switch” broadly, as “merely requir[ing] that a switch . . . be capable of being enabled/activated by a thumb but . . . not preclud[ing] another digit, i.e. index finger.” The Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed the anticipation rejection based on improper claim construction, but held that, even properly construed, certain claims would have been obvious under J634. The court remanded for determination of whether certain claims would have been obvious under the correct claim constructions. View "In Re: Man Machine Interface Tech., LLC" on Justia Law

Coleman sells an array of products, including personal flotation devices and owns the D714 patent, which claims “[t]he ornamental design for a personal flotation device” with two arm bands connected to a torso piece. The torso piece is flat on its back and tapers toward a connecting strap on its sides. Sport Dimension sells water-sports-related equipment, including its Body Glove® line of personal flotation devices, which also have two armbands connected to a torso piece. Unlike Coleman’s design, the torso section in the Body Glove® device extends upwards to form a vest that goes over a person’s shoulders. Sport Dimension sought a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe the D714 patent and that the patent is invalid. The district court excluded Coleman’s expert, stating that he “appears to possess substantial experience in the field of industrial design … [but] has no substantive experience in the narrower field of personal flotation device design” and entered judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed exclusion of the expert, but vacated the judgment, rejecting the district court’s claim construction, which eliminated several features of Coleman’s claimed design, specifically the armbands and the side torso tapering. View "Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., Inc." on Justia Law

GTG’s 179 patent claims methods of analyzing sequences of genomic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) for decoding genetic variations. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of GTG’s infringement suit, finding certain claims ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101. The court stated that GTG’s attempts to distinguish its position on the ground that the method of the claim is useful “have no basis in case law or in logic.” The claim ineligible for claiming unpatentable subject matter, not for lack of utility; even valuable contributions can fall short of statutory patentable subject matter. View "Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C." on Justia Law

Rembrandt sued, alleging that JJVC’s Acuvue Advance® and Oasys® contact lenses infringed Rembrandt’s patent. Rembrandt relied on expert testimony from Dr. Beebe, who presented test results, to prove that the accused lenses met the “surface layer” and “soft” claim limitations. During cross-examination, Beebe drastically changed his testimony regarding his testing methodology. JJVC relied on expert testimony from Dr. Bielawski that its lenses did not meet the “surface layer” limitation, but did not present expert testimony concerning the “soft” limitation. In his testimony, Bielawski impugned Beebe’s credibility. The court ultimately struck Beebe’s testimony regarding the testing and granted judgment as a matter of law that Rembrandt failed to prove that the accused lenses were “soft.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. After trial, Rembrandt received information suggesting that Bielawski testified falsely. Although the court denied Rembrandt’s request for post-trial discovery, Rembrandt received much of what it sought from Bielawski’s employer, the University of Texas, through an open records request. The parties no longer dispute that Bielawski testified falsely on material issues. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial. The district court erred in requiring proof that JJVC or its counsel was complicit in Bielawski’s false testimony. View "Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc." on Justia Law

Pride Mobility and Permobil compete for sales of power wheelchairs. Pride’s 598 and 343 patents disclose wheelchairs that raise their front wheels (called caster wheels) in response to torque from the chairs’ motors, enhancing the capacity of the chairs to travel stably over obstacles. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes reviews of the patents on petitions filed by Permobil, under 35 U.S.C. 311, and cancelled all claims of both patents for obviousness. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, finding that the Board misconstrued claim 7 of the 343 patent, which requires a “substantially planar” mounting plate “oriented perpendicular” to the axis of the claimed wheelchair’s drive wheel. The court affirmed as to all other claims, rejecting an argument that the Board erred in concluding that a relevant skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the claimed wheelchair by lowering the position of a pivot in a prior-art wheelchair. View "Pride Mobility Prods. Corp. v. Permobil, Inc." on Justia Law

Pride Mobility and Permobil compete for sales of power wheelchairs. Pride’s 598 and 343 patents disclose wheelchairs that raise their front wheels (called caster wheels) in response to torque from the chairs’ motors, enhancing the capacity of the chairs to travel stably over obstacles. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes reviews of the patents on petitions filed by Permobil, under 35 U.S.C. 311, and cancelled all claims of both patents for obviousness. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, finding that the Board misconstrued claim 7 of the 343 patent, which requires a “substantially planar” mounting plate “oriented perpendicular” to the axis of the claimed wheelchair’s drive wheel. The court affirmed as to all other claims, rejecting an argument that the Board erred in concluding that a relevant skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the claimed wheelchair by lowering the position of a pivot in a prior-art wheelchair. View "Pride Mobility Prods. Corp. v. Permobil, Inc." on Justia Law

MPHJ’s 381 patent, entitled “Distributed Computer Architecture and Process for Virtual Copying,” issued in 2004 and discloses a method and system that “extend[] the notion of copying . . . to a process that involves paper being scanned from a device at one location and copied to a device at another location.” “What makes Virtual Copier as simple as its physical counterpart . . . is the fact that it replicates the identical motions that a user who is making a copy using a physical photocopier goes through.” On inter partes review initiated by HP, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found certain claims not patentable as anticipated and one claim (13) not unpatentable as anticipated. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting HP’s argument that the PTO should have reviewed claim 13 to determine whether it was unpatentable as obvious. The court stated that it cannot review the decision not to institute. View "HP Inc. v. MPHJ Tech. Inv., LLC" on Justia Law